... which surprises me since it is pretty mediocre picture.

There's no telling what people want in this business. I got an extended licence through IS on a picture of some ends of blocks of wood, a picture I took on the spur of the moment when I was driving and stopped the car for a break.

Why did the guy pay $150 for the photo at iStock if he could have got it at FT for $10?

Who knows? The licence conditions could be different. The buyer may not know about FT. He could be on a project with a paying client so he's not bothered about the difference between $10 or $150 In fact, if a client is footing the bill ,the buyer may even prefer to pay $150. Even though they may be exactly the same images , the $150 makes it seem like a rather more special image than the $10 version.

My advice is to keep your options open. Try to sell your images wherever and whenever you can. It's all money.

While searching for my name on google, I found some of my pictures credited to someone else.

How did you manage that, if I may ask? Weren't your stolen pictures under the robber's name? So why did they show up?

.. averages 48.5 DL a month ...

Wow! That's well over 1 download a day, every day. That's amazing. Congratulations.

Can you show us the image, or give a link to it? I'd love to see it.

My best-selling image is only on 14 downlaods per month.

Yes, I already use a rocket blower. But I'm beginning to get specks that won't shift with a good blast of air. That's why I asked about the tape method.

I'm not too sure I'm keen on using liquids, either. And the brushes they sell, that work by static electricity, are criminally expensive. I can't believe they cost that much to produce.

I am quite confused about some agencies REQUIRING upsizing.  This seems to contradict good photo editing, since upsizing can degrade an image.

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind this?

No idea ... ours not to reason why   

Besides showing me ways to make the picture better, it also showed there is an almost mind-boggling amount of variables! 

That's the fun of photography   

And where you can get creative.

 When you say 100 -- that is in regards to the ISO, correct?  Are there any negative results to shooting at that low a setting?  If so what should I look out for?

The negative result is that the sensitivity to light is reduced at ISO100, so you generally have to use a lower shutter speed/wider aperture (or both).

Lower shutter speeds can lead to blurry images (camera shake), and most lenses, whatever their quality, perform best at mid-apertures (e.g. f8).

As Fred says, it's basically a trade-off.

1. First I submit to LuckyOliver, FeaturePics, Fotolia, Shutterstock, 123RF, StocXpert (StockXpert is REALLY tough on rejections recently for some reason)
2. Whatever gets through ... I send to DreamsTime and resubmit to SS and SX ...

Sounds like a great technique. Thanks for the advice.

I hear so many people state that they are against using noise reduction ...

If you guys are having problems with degrading your image when you run noise reduction, then you need to learn how to use it.

Where did I say I was against it?

And where did I say I was having a problem with it?

All I did was give a little bit of friendly advice. Possibly it was not needed. In that case, my sincere apologies. But the original post did say, "What are some of the good noise reduction software?" which sounded a little like someone who was inexperienced in this field, and I was trying to help out.

Use it, yeah. But whatever program you use, take it easy. And, if possible, try to avoid using it at all. That's all I was saying. And, as you point out, that's valid advice for any type of post-processing.

"Shoot like there's no Photoshop" as someone much more experienced than me says.

I use a very light touch with Nikon Capture NX, on very rare occasions.

I think you have to be careful with noise reduction software. Overdoing it degrades the image. Far better to try to shoot noise-free images - keep the ISO down as low as possible, go easy on the polarising filter, that sort of thing.

I don't think that any of us (unless someone here is a high-up employee of the company  ) can state, with certainty, the reason behind iStock's change. It could be deliberate, to limit uploads, or it could be a massive mess which they didn't foresee.

Or it could be something in-between.

Speculation is pretty much pointless, so why bother?

But one thing is certain. Uploading to them is now a major pain in the butt.

I'm deeply thankful that, when my chance came, I didn't go exclusive with them. I thought long and hard about it but, given their history of treating their suppliers, I didn't fully trust them. That seems to have paid off.

I feel really, really sorry now, for those who have gone exclusive with them. Is an extra 20-25c per image worth the hassle?

Thanks again CJ.

The word is in the 'Photographers Description' field (I wrote "After a hard day's work ...).

There seems to be nothing I can do to change it. My post on the forum was locked after just two hours. My message to support has received no reply other than the standard "Thank you for your question ..."

This should be a priority issue. But they don't seem to give a tinker's cuss.

The best advice I can give is the two 'V's ... Volume and Variety.

Take as many ('Volume') good quality pictures of as many different things ('Variety') as possible.

And there's another meaning to Variety, too. Try to find new ways of looking at familiar things. There are millions of photos of flowers out there, but if you can find a new way of looking at them ...

It's not easy, I know. But that's the satisfaction of it.